We bone our own chicken.
Keep on… nevermind.
As Congressman Beavis (R, Buttmunch) famously pointed out, there are things that simply cannot be polished.
That is one of 1000 occupations. I believe you do not have enough info to speak for them all.
If the food is conjugated with the purpose of feeding the protestors, shouldn’t our local neighborhood righties that believe charity can replace the state be supporting the occupiers? After all, using it to feed the homeless would be going against the donors’ wishes, and thus would be a violation of their rights, as well as making them less likely to give to charity in the future…
that’s all nice and good, but the needs of the marginalized and oppressed, remember? We have got to bridge the gap. There must be a paradigm shift away from the hegemonic discourse of “wishes” and “rights”. People over profits, people over sanity. Stop the classism, stop the hate. It’s change or perish, man :eek:
Personally, I think it’s Wall Street tycoons dressed up as bums deliberately showing up and asking for free food to try and make the OWS protest movement look hypocritical. Will these fiends stop at nothing?
So for our pro-charity, anti-government friends, it is more about partisan point scoring than about espousing a coherent philosophy. Ok then.
Yeah, but that’s outside the 99%. If they claim to represent “the 99%”, then the homeless are certainly a part of it, no?
So if there is a Catholic Bishops conference at a hotel, the Buffet should be made to be open to all comers or else the Church is against charity?
The food is being donated and set up for the protesters. There is not enough donated food to feed all of the homeless in New York, therefor some non-protesting homeless should be turned to other locations that are better able to meet their needs. What’s the problem?
I don’t think that’s a good rebuttal. You see, in the traditional liberal discourse the very existence of a functional institution is reason enough to demand from it that it reach out to some amorphously defined excluded people, usually of the preferred skin color and political alignment. E.g. a functioning school ought to be integrated with some historically disadvantaged thugs. A functioning university should admit some undocumented Democrats at in-state tuition rates. A functioning corporate bureaucracy should act affirmatively to give some cushy jobs to the (allegedly) underrepresented and downtrodden. Yes, and a functioning bank should diversify their mortgage lending even though the diverse ones will be defaulted on.
Now back to our occupiers. They have got a functioning kitchen, right? So why don’t they reach out to the homeless and the thugs? See the unbridged gap there? Time to say no to the classist exclusion.
All the more so given that the kitchen’s smooth operations no doubt depend on the goodwill of the community within which it operates (quoth Warren Buffett, the advocate of crushing the politically unconnected millionaires with taxes to finance government spending benefiting the politically connected billionaires’ companies). After all, absent the goodwill, the thugs could no doubt shut the kitchen down through, let’s say, direct action. So I say these greedy classists better pay up. If they feel bad about it, I am sure Paul Krugman can show up for a cameo explaining how much the food-for-thugs program benefits the economy and them personally via the magic multiplier.
Why do you attempt to use such catchphrases (even ironically) when in your GQ threads you display such an appalling lack of knowledge of really basic economics or common knowledge (such as the idea that bottled water is sold in gallon jugs, which would be obvious to anyone who ever visited a supermarket)?
Why is this in Great Debates? It should be in the pit, it is more fitting to the content in the OP and also to my response.
That is why in Detroit we take care of them.
http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/15886074/occupy-atlanta-protesters-marching-again
And so does Atlanta. Picking and choosing is going on here.
So villa, you make up two positions for righties and show how they are inconsistent, which proves that righties are just using this incident to score points. One point for you, I gues . . .
Trying to pretend this is a debate: Occupy Wall Street is not about wealth re-distribution or about the homeless. It is about the fact that Wall Street just got bailed out at Taxpayer expense with no consequences. Incomes at Goldman Sachs, et al., are still rising, deregulation is still occurring, no one went to prison; There were no consequences. Meanwhile, the heavily damaged economy has resulted in the death knell of the American Dream and for the first time in many generations our children will be less well off than we are. US infrastructure is poor, education in the US if lagging, the social safety net is crumbling and no one seems to give a shit. This is what they are protesting, not the classist bullshit peddled by the OP and Rand. The majority of the occupiers don’t give a shit about wealth redistribution and socialism, they care about fairness, the American dream, and the destruction caused by the “financialization” of the US economy and its industries.
So, some places, like Detroit, are trying to represent the 99%, while others are happier with 98%? 97%?
and the majority of Wehrmacht soldiers didn’t give a shit about the goal of creating a judenfrei Europe. Nevertheless, they did in effect help their leaders further that cause.
Incidentally, here is an interesting article about some of the dynamics of what this “majority” is going along with. #OccupyWallStreet Is a Church of Dissent, Not a Protest.
I personally have nothing against people being justly angry with the banksters, thieving business execs and tyrannical government thugs that Obama is fronting for. I just don’t like the Commies and the Commie-enablers like these “occupiers”, that’s all.
All OWS protesters are equal, but some OWS protesters are more equal than others.
code_grey, I realize you didn’t intend this to be a debate, but you’re doing a pretty good job of making me believe you are trying to annoy people. Stick to the immediate topic at hand - Occupy Wall Street and its treatment of/obligation to homeless people - and save the Communist and Nazi comparisons for The BBQ Pit.